Syria could turn out to be Obama's Tehran hostage crisis

Today the President of the United States called Valdimir Putin to ask the Russian leader to get behind a plan to rescue Syria from civil war. Relations between the US and Russia are not good and some are saying that Putin is increasingly calling the shots. Whatever the truth, things are spiralling out of control. This could be the issue that redefines Obama’s global reputation.

Republicans have been waiting for a big disaster on the foreign front to show that the President isn’t nearly as in control as his cool demeanour suggests – after all, this is the one area of polling in which he excels. Tragically, it may cost the lives of thousands of innocent Syrians to prove the point. Is this Obama’s Tehran Embassy moment – the one policy disaster that condemns his entire style of leadership and seals his electoral defeat?

In 1979, Iranian radicals seized the US embassy in Tehran and took its staff hostage. Incumbent President Jimmy Carter’s insisted that this was a crisis beyond his control, almost a natural disaster. But he had created the context. By backing the unpopular Shah of Iran until the last minute, ignoring the advice of his diplomats to change course, watching the Shah fall, and projecting throughout an image of cynicism and weakness, he turned the embassy staff into targets. It could have been avoided.

In the following months, Carter rejected military intervention (but for one disastrous rescue attempt) and tried to negotiate on good faith with the Iranian regime. Foreign policy was the one area that the public rated the President highly on. In the fevered atmosphere of the Cold War, his flexible, moderate approach seemed apt to prevent Armageddon – and the public initially backed their Commander in Chief. But as the hostage crisis dragged on, support ebbed away. Had he got the hostages out before the election, Carter would surely have been returned to office. But he didn’t – the hostages were only released after the inauguration. Their suffering had become a damning indictment of Carter’s entire style, a style that had hitherto been regarded as an electoral asset.

Fast forward to 2012 and Syria is also shaping up to be the ultimate test of Obama’s leadership. So far, his foreign policy has balanced liberal idealism with realism. The result has been a confusing mix of hopeful rhetoric, cruel use of drone strikes and confusion among both allies and enemies. He let Mubarak fall from power and bombed Gaddafi out of office, but he’s held off attacking Iran and allowed Syria to reach its parlous state. Just as Carter was trapped between defending a brutal ally and elevating an equally terrible opposition, so it must be conceded that Obama’s choices in Syria have been limited. Nevertheless, his rejection of either the War on Terror or strict non-intervention leaves him in a tricky spot during a humanitarian crisis. The middle-of-the-road approach won’t cut it. He ought to do something and he could. But he mustn’t and he won’t. Or will he? And if he does, won’t that contradict everything he has said before?

The Obama/Clinton approach towards Syria has been to decry both the humanitarian crisis and Russian/Chinese involvement. Hillary Clinton went so far as to call Putin’s meddling “no longer tolerable.” If that is the case, what has America done about it? It has allowed global opposition to the Assad regime to die the death of a thousand committee votes in the United Nations, while the President has actually ruled out unilateral military action. He could have acted sooner: the success of military aid to the rebels suggests that the regime might have been brought to heel. But, unless Obama does a U-turn, it’s possible that the bloodshed will drag on and on. Maybe until election day … just like the 1980 hostage crisis.

If that happens, the moral fibre of the American people will surely be tested. How much violence overseas will they endure watching before demanding action? And what message will inaction send about the willingness of the administration to deal with Iran? If the civil war continues and Russia fails to come over to the light side, voters will not only feel wretched but maybe even unsafe. Is it possible that the Obama Doctrine was not a rational, surgically applied use of force but rather a confused attempt to continue the Bush Doctrine without the equivalent cost in blood and treasure? If so, his moderation maybe exposed as Carter 's muddle. Watch him evolve from superhero to zero before your very eyes.